Talk:Carol Thomas

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Schwede66 in topic Did you know nomination

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Carol Thomas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'll be taking this on. It was an interesting read, and I'm happy to have learnt about Thomas and her role in women's football.

Lead and infobox

edit
  • "[...] and 43-year club career." Reads a bit odd at the end of the sentence. Consider putting this before "her 9-year captaincy".
  • "recognised as one of the genuine but largely unsung pioneer" Initially set off a concern about neutrality, but it's supported by the sources.

Early and personal life

edit
  • "in 1966," Don't think you need to clarify the year, when you already mention in the same sentence that she was inspired by the 1966 World Cup.
  • "[...] her commitment and dedication [...]" this sentence reads a bit odd. Think you could cut this bit at the beginning and just have it start with "two days later", or something.
  • Wondering if this section could be broken up and the details about her later life moved to after her career. Otherwise, the chronology is a bit odd, detracting from her moving from casually playing football to playing it professionally in 1966.
  • "inspiring her football-playing grandchildren" Are they professional footballers of note? If so, might be worth linking to them. If not, consider rewriting to "inspiring her grandchildren to play football" or something similar.
  • Wainwright Society links are dead. Add archived links. (Date of publication should also be added)
  • "her support for people in Nepal" How did she support them? Materially? Through charity work?
  • Spotcheck: "She has developed a passionate interest in the people and cultures of high altitude, and in particular helping and supporting the people of Nepal especially since the tragic earthquake of April 2015." So the source doesn't elaborate further.
  • As you say, no more info. Kingsif (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • "dedicated to English women's football before the Women's Super League" Before?
  • "Hull City Ladies" Clarify that it's Hull City Ladies F.C.

Club career

edit
  • "Women's football was still banned in England at the time" This could probably do with a bit more context added.
  • Spotcheck: "The works leagues were the lifeblood of football for men and particularly for women, with their sport officially banned from 1921 until 1971 after the FA ruled “the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged”." This is quite some institutional sexism. Would definitely be worth adding context about this. At least mention that the ban was lifted in 1971, otherwise it's unclear how she was even able to begin playing professionally.
  • Added a link to the UK section of the bans of women's football article, and mentioned when it was repealed. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Last paragraph of this section, combined with other paragraphs from the previous section, demonstrates to me that I think there could be room for a "Later life and career" section later on.

International career

edit
  • "[...] with most of the squad's Northern players unable to go." Why? It seems significant that this was the only game she missed, but there's no explanation.
  • Spotcheck: "Thomas only missed one international against Wales in the Isle of Man, just two days before the 1985 Mundialito – along with most of the northern-based players due to logistical and financial restraints – during that period (what would that equate to in this modern era?)."
  • I've added part of that as a quote. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Could you cite a specific page number for Owen 2005?
  • "on to the best football of her career" Maybe "best moment" instead of "best football"?
edit
  • No notes.

References

edit
  • You reference a few local papers here, without any links or unique identifiers. Are there any archives you could link to or more information you could provide in order to aid in verifiability?
  • Some of these were present before I began work on the article; I have a friend in Yorkshire who managed to get some library scans for me to check anything that was solely sourced to one, but I don't have them presently. I could look into possible archive links. Kingsif (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Make sure your references are as complete as possible. Check for missing publications, dates, authors, etc.

Checklist

edit

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):  
    A couple minor prose issues here and there.
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    Only word to watch I noticed was backed up by multiple sources, so I didn't take issue with it.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):  
    Citations should be filled out to be as complete as possible, for verification purposes. There's a couple cases of dead links and incomplete citations holding this back.
    b. (citations to reliable sources):  
    c. (OR):  
    All spotchecks verify the information they're cited to.
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    Earwig flags a few bits, but they're mostly either quotes or small parts of larger sentences.[1]
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):  
    b. (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Only part that seemed non-neutral to me was based in reliable sources.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    No reverts since its creation in 2016.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  
    Image in infobox is original work licensed under CC 4.0
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Image in infobox still lacks alt text and a caption.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:  
    There's some minor issues that are holding this back, mostly issues with verifiability. Once these have been dealt with, I'd be happy to pass this. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not quite reached the Wainwright Society refs, but otherwise addressed all points - would you like to look over the changes? Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
This all looks great, fantastic work! Well done finding archived versions of those local papers too. At this point I'm happy to make the final couple wee adjustments myself and pass the review. Thanks for putting the time into this article. -- Grnrchst (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

(Criteria marked   are unassessed)

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Schwede66 (talk05:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 21:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Carol Thomas; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited:  
  • Interesting:  

QPQ:   - WP:DYKCRIT says full reviews are needed, not partial: however, only full reviews with no reliable predecessors count as a QPQ
Overall:   For the main hook, the source don't mention 43 years explicitly, but it's fine per WP:CALC. I personally would rather the hook be deemed interesting enough to be mentioned more explicitly in sources. Even still, the hook doesn't seems too catchy. As an aside, the page's "leaving football after 43 years of playing" is not technically correct, as she had some temporary retirements, and did not play continuously. The alts don't seem much better. Instead, what about a hook mentioning that her career started while women's football was benned by the FA? —Bagumba (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

  • @Bagumba: re. QPQ - do Template:Did you know nominations/Air pollution in Turkey or Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Marley work for you? re. Interesting - feel free to propose hooks. I'm not sure about the start of her career while football was banned angle, as the same could be said of all her teammates (and many others). There was one source I read (and presumably used in the article for something) that did mention 43 years explicitly, though as you say, CALC covers it; I've removed the "of playing", it was added as a useful way of distinguishing between playing and awareness eras. Kingsif (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
    Kingsif: For QPQ, Turkey also looks like a partial review, but Marley looks OK. Go ahead and update the nom, striing out Three Warfares. As for the ban not being unique, perhaps, I don't know that much about the game, so it seemed interesting. But maybe combining it with starting at age 11 makes it unique? I'll think about proposing it myself, if you don't. As far as "43 years of playing", the current "...leaving football after 43 years. In her later football career..." is also wonky: she "left" football, but then still has a later football career. Still needs work.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • Bagumba, updated both. How about:
  • ALT3: ... that Carol Thomas began her football career at the age of 11, while the sport was still banned for women? Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
    ...while the sport was still banned Was the sport banned for males too?—Bagumba (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Bagumba: No, added "for women" to the end. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Kingsif: It seems the article doesn't explictly state in the article that she was 11 when she started. So I figured it'd be fine if her birthdate was sourced, but the sources for the first sentence at "Early and personal life" don't seem to support her birthdate either (unless I'm missing something with that Queen's Birthday source).—Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Bagumba: I think that source was already there when I started on the article. I know there is at least one source that mentions being 11, though it might be PRIMARY; I assume that the Football Museum profile includes her birth date, but if not that could well be reason for the confusion about how old she was when she first captained England. I'll look into it hopefully later today, and consider other hooks again anyway. Kingsif (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Bagumba: I've just noticed I didn't add my reply after checking, which is not great given I have a self-imposed schedule. The "Early and personal life" section includes She recalls kicking a ball around with them until she was eleven, and both the Hull Story and Women's Football Archive refs at the end of this sentence say 11 (as a numeral). So I think you must have been missing something. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Kingsif:: The "Early and personal life" passage refers to her age when she played with her family (or possbily Air Street United). What is needed is a statement in "Club career" that she was 11 when she began her career with BOCM. Those sources that you previously mentioned support it.—Bagumba (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
    @Bagumba: As one of the sources was already present in the first line of the Club career section, I have just added the age. Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply